Realcent.org

Views/Positions on where to draw the line on weight limits for slicks? What would be your definition of the minimum weight of $10 face to not be called "slick"?

Mint nominal weight is 250 g
"accepted" nominal circulating weight is 247.2 g

Coins are approaching "slickness", to my mind, in the 243-244 range. Maybe not QUITE slicks, but not an acceptable weight, and at that point I believe they need to be sold by weight, or extra coin added as make-up.

What about the 244-247 range? I start asking myself if I should keep or smelt these, but they still usally have decent definition, and the weight is not far off of circulated. Thoughts?

Between 241 and 244 I get even more twitchy. I want to send these to the smelter. Opinions?

Coins in the 237-240 range are definitely slicks, in my view. That's ~5% below nominal weight. No question in my mind as to if they are fodder for the smelter.
(As would be anything else below this weight.)

If you are selling quarters, as an example, I would say that an unaltered mix of Washington's, with a few Standing Liberties thrown in, should still hit about 715 (the conventional "standard")... as perhaps as many as half of a roll of quarters could be 64's (which should go 723) and will compensate for lighter coins. Draw a bell curve with your divisions with 715 being peak and 723 to right shoulder, 707 to left. Anything lower than 707 (244.47 grams) would start to become suspect. Ask yourself "if I paid for something in good faith... and THESE were the coins I received... would I feel ripped off?" If the answer is yes, then offer such listings by weight, and let the buyer have the option of the decision. Anyone buying Barber bags off of any online source that states they are avg circ condition needs to realize they are purchasing them as numies, not as bullion as their true wt is only 89 to 93% of their advertised 715. Buy a thousand dollar face bag and you will face a significant shortage in what you might have thought you were getting. Gresham's Law (or a variant thereof) would lead us to believe that even among silver stacker's... all other things being equal... we will likely tend to smelt/sell the most heavily worn coins with indistinguishable features, or otherwise some shape of culls (scratched, bent, abraded, holed, etc)

I have seen some small bags, $100 of 90%, that have extra SILVER quarters in them to compensate if the bag is slickish. Others, I have seen chuck full of slick 20's and 30's.

Slick halves will be generally 95% of standard weight. However, slick dimes can be 10% or more worn. I guess that is one reason why 90% halves have a little more premium.

I think the honest fair way to do it as SILVER goes ever higher is to add more coins if needed. Sell/Buy the bag by weight according to the 715 standard. If the bag contains coins that have more wear than average, add a reasonable number of coins so that the buyer is getting his/her money's worth.

I sell all my stuff by weight (full disclosure).

I've learned that's the fair way

Good responses all, but... you're mostly not answering my question. Well Ray sort of did. He proposed that 715 be the new "circulated" nominal and that we should use the delta between that and mint to get down to 707 as a minimum point for circulated coin. Which would put the minimum weight for $10 face at 244. Which suggests that I would want to pull out coin that can't meet that standard. I can buy that - and it fits my street sense of the types of coins that are marginal. I just sorted out about $150 face of Washingtons earlier this afternoon, by year, and (as one might expect) there is a strong correlation between weight and mint year. Depression era coin were the most worn. Early 30s were 237.8. Late 30s were 239.3. And by look and feel I would call these all slicks (except for a few I pulled out that weren't). By the early 40s the weight was up to the upper 243s. Marginal coins, not fully slicks, but more slicks than not. By mid 40s they well over 244 and climbing. By late 40s weights were up to 247s.

As to mixing coin to get the average up, I've not been found of people selling me half slicks and half virgin coin to yield an average weight for the roll, when half the coin in the roll are still slicks.

I agree weight is the best way to sell any coin that can't meet the standard.

a $10 roll needs to weigh 247.1 grams to be the equivalent of 715. I would be concerned if a roll didn't weigh 247.1 unless i was told they were worn or slick and had a compensating discount. I'm not saying you need specific rules, but average circulated to me means at least 247.1.

I thought ya'll had different names for me depending on how much I weigh

That too, but that's for another time...

I've found that in dealing with several different members here, "circulated" can mean anything from AU to slick. 5% is the number in my head, after which I get irritated. However, when you buy site unseen, you really are at the mercy of the seller's veracity.

The thing to be cognizant of is this. Say you buy a $1000 face bag of quarters from an online dealer who represents them as weighing 715 oz. You go to the trouble of weighing them upon receipt only to learn that you got 690 oz. The dealer isn't going to refund you the difference, but they will (at present) buy them at face value (not gram weight). You are out 25 oz through no fault of your own. We are brothers here, so I say it's unfair to pass your "problems" to another forum member, unless you sell by gram wt as Thogey does. Cull the lightweights out of your purchase. Next time there's a price jump, sell them back to where you bought them from... while you can still receive face value for them. You are not doing anything disingenuous, you are merely returning the coins to them which you decided you didn't want. The original price disparity has been remedied. When the price goes high enough, the industry standard may change, inclusive of either or both sales by gram wt and purchases by same.

justj2k78 wrote:I've found that in dealing with several different members here, "circulated" can mean anything from AU to slick. 5% is the number in my head, after which I get irritated. However, when you buy site unseen, you really are at the mercy of the seller's veracity.

Problem solved: Buy listings with pics ......or sweet videos

Im pretty sure I always described my lots well and honestly. Ive sold some slicks but listed them as such. I dont have a scale though so I just go by appearance.

BTW - not being critical of anyone here. This was all a thought exercise for me to decide what I should consider a cull, to be turned back for smelting....